Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
Subject: borat
High Five a la Borat?Brooklynian » Forum » Prospect Heights »
-
All right, Pacific, you dragged another post out of me, I can't help it. I read through the minutes you linked, and the $1.1B # includes costs related to funding for education and other public services. This is most definitely not a public subsidy to FCRC, unless you think it should be obligated to pay for our schools now. Stuckey then goes on to state that the city will gain $6.1B in new revenue, netting the city $5B. You may disagree with his numbers, but then don't quote him as a source to back up your argument. Also, who said anything about corporatism? That's an ideology. If you look up "corporation" in wikipedia, you get a much blander definition.
-
NPV they say is 1.6 billion. NYEDC says its 1billion. and yes, when a developer brings in 15k or so new residents they should help pay for schools. look Stuckey himself called it a subsidy.
-
Please allow me to dust off one of 6 year old threads that started it all.
As discussed above, many people were leery of a publicly subsidized stadium for a private developer, but some could rationalize it because it came with the promise that FCR would develop something that people have been complaining about forever:
We need more affordable housing
that is well run, and self-sustaining.Um, right, that's why we gave you (FCR) lots of money to build an arena; you convinced gullible people that you could do something that many of us have been trying to do for DECADES. Those of us who understand how difficult the task is knew you couldn't do it, but we had no power to stop the process.
If this were a better world, we'd have the power to make you (FCR) allocate some of the profits you will receive from operating that arena and put it toward fulfilling the terms of the CBA.
But, alas, I fear you will outsmart us. If we get close to getting said power, you will move those profits into other corporate entities.
...as a result, I am profoundly jealous. You see, when I try to convince the public that I (and my peers) are able to solve some complex problem, they rarely give me money without measurable, enforceable outcomes attached. I never have the luxury of saying that I will get around to doing the hard parts later.
To make a long story short: Sometimes when a contract is signed, one party ends up having to do more than what they feel is fair. I'd like Ratner to be the one who walks away feeling that way, not the public.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Truth in advertising
http://twitpic.com/a43zbn
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!